Talk:Akira class/archive
Apocrypha Bridge Commander A recent edit suggested that the USS Kali was not in Star Trek: Bridge Commander. Could somebody please confirm this? Thanks. --From Andoria with Love 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :I have got the game Star Trek: Bridge Commander and the Akira class is in it with Quantum torpedoes :I added this informasjon to the article but someone deleted it. -- MPC 13.47 (norwegian time), 25 July 2006 ::I removed that. Computer games are not a valid canon source (see and policies). I suppose it could go into the apocrypha section, but it has no place in the main article or the stats on the side bar. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Bridge hello akira fans ...i found the blueprints for the bridge of the akira class starship if anything fits the bridge module layout this does ...need to know where to put it so all can see. -- :There have been no canon interior shots of the in Star Trek, therefore there is no legitimate place to put it. --Alan del Beccio 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ::Um, nowhere. At least not on Memory Alpha. Those blueprints are most likely completely non-canon. This might be something for the Star Trek Expanded Universe, or Memory Beta. Probably the former. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Canon Background Bernd: Didn't you note another Akira-class ship aswell? The NCC-63646 it says on your site. Should we add that, is it canon? -- Redge 17:50, 17 Jan 2004 (PST) ---- Just a few things: #Is that crew number (535) correct? I read somewhere that it was 500, with a 4500 maximum in case of evacuations and such. #And how about a commision date? Probably to vague to pinpoint, I guess. #Can we put this quote on the page, or is that against copyright policy? And if we can, where to put it? On top, I should think. "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays - one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." :::- Alex Jaeger (designer) - Redge 18:53, 17 Jan 2004 (PST) : If you can cite the magazine article (title and month) that that comment was posted in, then sure, that would go fine in the background info section. :-) -- MinutiaeMan 12:42, 18 Jan 2004 (PST) Citations Other than the appearances, there are absolutely no citations to any of the claims for this ship. Where does the information come from? The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual has information on it, and it is a permitted resource, but that has different data than in the article. Should I simply correct it to be consistent, or are there other valid resources for this that aren't listed and I don't know about? Aholland 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (And as an aside, I do recognize that the archivists have put numerous sources of data in the background portion, but which is selected and which are permitted needs to be clearer. I still think the DS9 Tech Manual is our best choice at the moment.) Aholland 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Carrier vessel? Defiant class carrier Be suggested that Akira classes held Defiant class ships? It would obviously be possible considering the large hangers, and, it is always seen with two Defiant Class ships. NeoExelor 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :That would be way far fetched speculation. Also, I think that the Defiant class ships are too large to be held inside an Akira. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::According to the measured length and height of the Akira model mentioned in production notes for First Contact, the Akira would have trouble fitting runabouts or Federation fighters in its bays. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :Well, that lays this argument to rest, I think ;-) Thanks Captain Mike. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::: Mike, are these production notes published? Otherwise, I'm afraid to say, that they are not Permitted Resources and cannot be used as a reference on or in any page on Memory Alpha without explicit written permission of Paramount Pictures. Additionally, they too must be notarized by Gene Roddenberry himself. I'm sure that since this applies to Proberts design sketches for the K't'inga class, it applies to all the FC ships as well.--Alan del Beccio 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::IF they predetermined a length and height of the ship when they were filming it, i'd say that is established enough for me.. i'm not sure if you are joking about the rest? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) What about inside or on the Akira, like the aeroshuttle on the Voyager? NeoExelor 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) :The aeroshuttle is visible on the outside, and no Defiants are visible on the outside of the Akira. In addition, as has been said, it is likely not large enough to fit them inside. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) If you look close enough, the strange pod on the back of the Akira connecting the pylons (From the top) is the basic shape of a defiant, though not the exact shape. NeoExelor 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC) ::::The look may be similar, but I doubt it. You may be interested in this article, which includes a comparison image of Defiant next to an Akira. The Defiant being about 5 decks high, kinda makes it improbable of docking into an Akira class in anyway. - AJ Halliwell 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I've noticed ,isc. hatches on the ship. Can someone tell me what they are? Here is a drawing which I believe to be accurate http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/NeoMExelor/wtfhatch.jpg http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/NeoMExelor/akira-lenny.jpg original? It could be ablative armour (like the newer ships of the Federation have, like the Defiant) or hatches for cargo, what I doubt of course of the shape they have espacially on the front of the primary hull. The rollbar-pod has on its upper site a "hatch-shape", which roughly matches the defiants rendering whith some imagination, but I doubt heavily, that this ship carries ships of the Defiant-Class in it. After all I don't think that the Akira-Class is big enough to carry ships of the Defiant-Class. --Nappo :Changed to external links; as previously concluded: Akira is not big enough to carry a Defiant class ship I'd presume their just hull hatches- no real purpose, although Cargo seems the most likely. Although the one on the torpedo-rollbar thing may be something that can be switched out like gun clips. (On another note, this image appears to be fan made - not sure it if its accurate or not.) - AJ Halliwell 16:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Fighter compliment possiblities I was thinking after compairing sizes with afew ships, would the Venture-Class Scout Ship fit within the Akira-Class, its not much bigger then the Enterprise-E shuttle. Federation mission scoutship – 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC) :Sure, it is POSSIBLE, but we have now reason to believe that it is done. The only time we have ever seen a mission scoutship was in , and there were no Akiras around. Also, we've never really seen evidence that the mission scoutship is a fighter, rather than just another auxiliary craft. As for the Federation attack fighter, there has been no canon evidence that Akiras carried those, either. Basically, all we really have seen is terms of combat capabilities is that they have warp drive, shields, phasers, and photons. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Akira Class- Carrier? So I was watching DS9 and I realized that the scale on the Federation Fighters must have been pushed up so you could see the action. A fighter that is supposedly only large enough for a single pilot looks like it is wider than the bridge of a Galaxy Class ship, and it's total body is about half that of a Kling Bird of Prey. If you look, there's a little bulb at the top of the fighters which must be the cockpit, so if you use that as a comparison, the bulb being about 3-4 times as wide as the pilot you can see that the Federation Fighters aren't much larger than shuttle crafts. The designer of the Akira class said it was designed specifically as a carrier, but he didn't specify what it would carry. I don't think it was an evacuation ship, as almost any ship had more actual living capacity for refugees and it's unlikely everyone they're evacuating has their own shuttle. I would guess that a single fighter, with an engine power much lower than even a runabout, would have a hard time keeping up with a charging fleet like they did in the Battle of Cardassia. It would make more sense if the fighters returned to a mothership before and that ship carried them to the battle field before releasing them. I know there isn't a lot of canon to support this, but there is canon evidence that a smaller ship like a shuttle or runabout can't keep up with an actual starship. :At warp, over very long distances, no, little vessels don't keep up. Was the "charging fleet" at warp, covering distances between entire sectors, at the time after the fighters were deployed? I haven't seen it so I don't know. In the article on the Battle of Cardassia I see a planet in screenshots, so, I'm guessing the charge was at impluse or even lower in-system speeds. SwishyGarak 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::These are the specifications I found on the web on Akira Class flight bay capacities: ::-6 Type 18 Shuttlepods ::-2 Type 6 Personnel Shuttles ::-2 Type 7 Personnel Shuttles ::-4 Danube Class Runabouts ::-40 Kaneda Class Fighters ::-10 Sphinx Class Word Pods ::The fighters that were used during the Dominion war were either Peregrine class fighters, or Ju'Day class fighters. The Peregrine class fighters were used by the Maquis in earlier episodes of DS9. The Ju'Day class was introduced on Voyager (this was Chakotay's ship), and is much larger than the Peregrine class. ::The Kaneda class fighters are much closer to the same size as the Peregrine class, but do not have warp capability. The way I understand it, the lower deck of the Akira was a fly-through deck, allowing the ship to launch fighters out the forward flight bay doors, and the fighters can land in the back. --Davisn456 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ::: Federation fighters were none of the above, canonwise. The rest is, of course, speculation. --Alan del Beccio 02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Design Akira based on Enterprise I added a reasonable conjecture to the article, that Starfleet based the design for the Akira on the design of the Enterprise NX-01 (I know I'm not the first person to think of this). It makes sense--especially when you consider how poorly the large, bulky, not-easily-maneuverable ships performed in the 2360s, both against the Borg and the Dominion--that Starfleet would want to return to a smaller, quicker, more battle-oriented style of starship, and realized that Enterprise would be a good model to base a new design on. Indeed, it does seem that after the destruction of the Starfleet ships did start to become smaller, sleeker, and more combat-oriented.--Antodav 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC) And now it seems someone has deleted it, along with part of the paragraph that came before it...would it at least be possible discuss deletions on the talk page before making them? Thank you. --Antodav 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC) :I made the deletion. I did not mean to delete some of the stuff before, but I still don't think that speculation about the Akira design being based on the NX class belongs in background. It is in universe speculation. Most of the stuff in background is about how the model was created, and since the Akira model was made before the NX model, I feel this just doesn't belong here. Maybe it belongs in an earlier section, but in italics there? --OuroborosCobra 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC) :Hmm, I just thought of another problem with the theory. If the Akira was designed off of the NX because of the need of a smaller, faster ship to combat the growing threat of the Dominion, it would have had to come into service after the discovery of the Jem'Hadar. Unfortunetly, the Akira came into service in 2368, and the episode where the Jem'Hadar are found ( ) does not take place until 2370. Therefore, the threat of the Jem'Hadar could not have influenced the design of the Akira looking like the NX class. I am removing the speculation, as by my explanation it no longer makes plausible sense. --OuroborosCobra 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ::I re-added the conjecture that the Akira may have been based on the NX-01's design, but left out the part about the Dominion. --From Andoria with Love 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) :::There's also no evidence the Akira was built in 2368, by the way.... -- Captain M.K.B. 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) :OK, I based my statement of 2368 on the fact that it was in the article. Oh well. At least all my mucking about has gotten one bad fact removed. --OuroborosCobra 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) NX-01 looks like Akira class The NX-01 Enterprise was commissioned in the 2150s (if not the 2140s?) yet it looks like the of the 2370s. Another anachronism- the 2260s Constitutions (and the 2160s Daedali) looked more "boxy" (for lack of a more accurate word) and didn't have as many windows as 2360s and 2370s ships did. The NX-01 has plenty of windows however, and its edges and overall design are much more smoother and futuristic looking than than aforementioned 2160s and 2260s ships. You might as well see a stagecoach roll through a wilderness in a wild-western movie with an oil refinery in the background. (Or what would be a more accurate analogy?) Therefore, what was the story behind this futuristic design of ship(s) appearing in the 2150s?? Did a ship designer from the 2380s somehow travel back to the 2140s and share his blueprints with fellow ship designers of the day? I know time travelers can change history and therefore create alternate histories so do you think The Original Series is due for a massive remake (including a redesign of all ships seen there?) I think so even though the budget for such an undertaking may be too great. -- 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :So you're saying that every single aspect of Federation design is entirely, 100% functional, with no aesthetic input whatsoever? Or that, potentially, manufacturing methods can evolve in ways that would create apparent "throwbacks" but actually be because of advancing technology? For example, the NX era ships had plenty of visible plates on their surface, so do TNG era ships, but TOS era ships are relatively smooth? Was the TNG era design in that way an atavism? But what if materials science is behind it? So for the NX they used a tough material in sheets as large as they could make it, then during TOS they were able to make similarly tough material but science allowed them to make it in sheets MUCH larger. Then during TNG, they were able to create an armor far, FAR tougher but it wasn't possible to make it in the large continuous forms available previously, so they returned to smaller plates to take advantage of the tougher material. Some gains in some areas require compromises in others sometimes. Also, like I said, it could have been a matter of style to a degree as well. (It almost seems like someone was making these as TV shows and had different SFX budgets, funny thing that...) --JCoyote 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::as im posting this with a voice-to-text application on my touchscreen LCD, would it make sence for the NX-01 to use vacume tubes like the NCC-1701 did? just to fit continuity? and have only printout displays? and use small cartredges of tape for data storage? If you take TOS out for considerations of Technical continuity, i see NOTHING wrong with it. I haveto ask you though...Do you hate the 2005/06 Ford Mustang? It looks alot like far older cars, and dosnt follow the design trends of the 90's... --Sdamon 05:47, 17 October 2006 (PDT) Akira design lineage I was looking at this page and noticed that the Akira was said to have been built and designed in the 2370s. Unfortunately, there is a lot of canonical references out there that state that the Akira was designed before even the Galaxy class in the 2360s. http://www.ditl.org/ has a great resource on starship timelines and the akira class. I was wondering if anyone has a problem with this ship being made in the 2360s and not the 2370s. :DITL isn't canon. In fact, the information on their regarding the design lineage of the Akira is in white text, which on their site means it is fanon made up by the authors of the site. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ::What im most curious about is where they got the lineage information for THIS page. What IS the actual official say on this, if any? ::Stephen Pugh's Vessels of Starfleet - constructive criticism and a very complete list of known Akira-class vessels. If you'll look at this link, it says the fact files even prove my hypothesis about the akira desing lineage. If you have any problems with me changing it, ill be making the edit soon. Please say your piece and send me the info my way so we can have a consise look at all the data possible. I really don't want to piss anyone off.Itchy01ca 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :The Fact Files are also non-canon. The ONLY text on DITL from canon sources is that in yellow. The white is fanon, the green is from licensed (but still non-canon) sources. See and policies for OUR canon policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Speculation Background cleanup I want to minimize the speculatory and/or the not so objective aspects of the Background information but are unsure wether i have the Authority or not? -- :I guess you have, after all that's what a Wiki is for - and with 3/4 of the article being unofficial "Background information", I can also see why would want to. IMO, the best way would be to copy all information you deleted from the articles page to this talk page, and state what you don't like about it... -- Cid Highwind 13:40, 18 Jan 2004 (PST) :: I too am a little bit concerned about the vast amounts of non-canon information taken as accurate when discussing different types of Federation Starship. I do not recall, for example, the top warp speed of an Akira-class Starship ever being mentioned in an episode or film. In fact, I don't remember the name "Akira-class" ever being mentioned in an episode or film. There seems to be something about Starfleet ships that encourages people to forget all the rules and just make stuff up. Alex Peckover 15:44, Jun 3, 2004 (CEST) ::: Chronologically, this is somewhat out of place; nevertheless, it's on the same topic. I've removed the following speculation from the talk page :::* "The ''Akira-class starship is one of the more controversial ships that has appeared on Star Trek. Originally appearing in First Contact, the design caught the attention of eagle-eyed fans studying the fleeting images of the USS Thunderchild s attack on the Borg cube." :::* "''Although some have speculated that it would be named after something else named Akira [[canon|in the ''Star Trek universe]]. The name "Akira" could mean "light," "bright," "morning sun," or over 40 other meanings in Japanese, depending on the characters chosen for its writing. "Akira" and "Hikaru" (which was used for the name of Hikaru Sulu) can be written with the same Japanese character." :::* "''The first issue in question is the ship's registry number. The most visible representative of the class, the , had a registry of NCC-63549 and a noticeable appearance more in line with later ships like the and the [[Sovereign class|''Sovereign-class]]. To those fans who believe in chronological assignment of registries, the Thunderchild s low number requires some explanation, since it would put the design somewhere around the time of the and before the ." :::* "''For many starship buffs, that figure is simply too large to be credible when considered alongside other Starfleet ships. However, the ''Sovereign-class USS Enterprise was upgraded for the film Star Trek Nemesis to hold twelve torpedo launchers, which gives credence to the fifteen launchers of the Akira-class." :::* "''However, only three phaser strips can be seen on the model, although given the limited fields of fire of the existing strips it is possible that there are additional emitters to fill in the gaps. (The [[USS Lakota|USS ''Lakota]] also had emitters that were not readily apparent on its model.) While two launchers on the Akira may seem too few for some it should be noted that even examples of the ''Ambassador'' class, which have two times the volume of the Akira http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html, seen later on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine also seem to have only two launchers." :::* "''It should be noted that the ships that the Akira is being compared to are long range multi-mission ships designed to be out for years at a time completing missions as varied as cultural contact, exploration, and scientific research as well as combat. The Akira, which first and foremost a combat vessel would be able to dedicated a much larger portion of its available space to weaponry. ::: For one, the registry-chronology discussion is a long ago fad that really doesnt need to be explored here without supporting canon evidence. As for the rest, this "information" is rife with speculation and bias that doesn't need to be mentioned here. Second, this should be an encyclopedia, not an analysis page...we can link to Ex Astris if we ''really want to explore that kind of analysis. --Alan 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Moved from page *USS "Erasmus, NCC-62164 I moved this reference here, because I believe that it is not from any episode (no links to this page, for example). If it is, please cite. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 13:05, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Removed from sidebar I removed the following from the sidebar. Apparently (can't verify that myself), this info is from the DS9 TM completely. If it is necessary in the article, the only valid place for it would be a background section, not the sidebar. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Tactical systems Photon Torpedoes The DS9 Tech Manual lists 2 for this class, I believe. Someone changed it to 15. What is the basis for the claim it has 15? If none, I'll switch it back to the Tech Manual data. Aholland 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :The basis for this claim is that their is a quote from the disgner on the very page stating that it has 15 torpedo tubes. The Star trek Starship Spotter also list it as have 15. - Riggers 22:10, 30 April 2006 (GMT) ::I think there should be a hidden comment in order to avoid all those edits between 2 and 15 launchers. - Philoust123 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC) I don't know what a hidden comment is. But I do know that the Star Trek Starship Spotter is not a permitted resource for Memory Alpha. The DS9 Tech Manual - a publically available resource written by production staff at the time of writing - is, to a degree. If there is no other permitted resource for the number of torpedoes, the Tech Manual's number should be the one used in the article, with the other one in background if desired as apocrypha. So, I will ask again in a slightly more formalistic way: Is there any resource that is either a valid resource or a permitted resource (Restricted Validity Resource) under Memory Alpha's policies that supports a number other than 2 for the number of torpedo launchers on this class of ship? If not, the article needs to be modified back to 2; if so, the source should be cited. I will go ahead and revert the article if no permitted resource is cited over the next few days. Aholland 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ::Hidden comment : . Once the number is agreed by the community, I suggested to put this hidden comment because this number has changed several times. I don't care about how much torpedoes are acceptable on MA, I don't understand anything with starships. I follow this page for the french MA and I don't want to see it change every week between 2 and 15. - Philoust123 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Where would the comment be put? Just before the text with "2" in it? Aholland 15:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :::From the episodes it is seen in, it would seem to have a few more than 2. we see it launching torpedo's from the 'rollbar', and a close look there seems to imply several launchers (since the torps were fired from an off centered position.) the close ups show what might be 4 tubes in the roll bar. http://www.shiporama.org/images/akira/akira4.jpg we also see torps fired from under the saucer, just foreward of the deflector. http://www.shiporama.org/images/akira/akira9.jpg so you can make a good claim for at least 5 tubes. personally, i'd say 6, assuming it has at least one guarding it's rear. 15 june 2006 ::::http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/AJHalliwell/Armedtotheteeth-1.jpg Sorry the pix huge, but there are 15. - AJ Halliwell 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC) :::::ok, having checked the image, first, can we get some normal, non-edited copies of the close up inserts? second, can you support in canon the placement you have claimed? (i've never seen the rear tubes you claim. infact, the orginal preproduction drawing has 7 forward facing tubes in the rollbar, 4 top row and 3 lower row. the side and saucer tubes don't have a preproduction shot that allows counting, although the 3 under, 2 per side layout is probably the intended.) creating a graphic using poorly copied images and a plan drawing does nothing to confirm the 15 tube hypothesis. any one can make an image like that to support their claim. -Mithril 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Since I don't want to hotlink, http://www.neutralzone.de/database/indexfra.htm Federation>Starships>Akira Class. Two images at the bottom were used (First and Fifth), the graphic is from ST: The Magazine. And Sketches of the various torpedo launcher are in ST: The Magazine as well, I believe the second or third issue (spock on cover) which I no longer own. But being as the designer said "I made a ship with 15 torpedo launchers" and there are 15 torpedo launcher "looking things" on the hull, I really don't think it's that much of a stretch... - AJ Halliwell 01:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Hm, I did find http://www.lcarscom.net/fsd/art/images/da-6.jpg this, which points towards the 3 under-launchers. Hm, maybe I remembered wrong about the launcher. Conviniently, that could put the missing launcher on the underside of the saucer, like the image above. ;) See also here (which gives room for the under-saucer launcher), here is what made me think of aft launchers, as that section has the same protrusions as the forward part, and here is the site combining all of it. - AJ Halliwell 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ::::While we search for the remaining 4 photon torpedo tubes (possibly 3), I'm going to change the article to reflect the 11 that we have found unless anyone has any disputes? - AJ Halliwell 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) ::::For those following along, we're at 11 ; heading to 12. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/AJHalliwell/Armedtotheteethagain-12.jpg - updated locator graphic) - AJ Halliwell 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::Now that we have the 11 launchers all on the weapons pod itself, I don't need to point out new links to grab the remaining four (and no, none of them are side-pointing): the under-saucer launcher (or, should I say, the under-''deflector'' launcher) and the three on the forward edge of the saucer. Torlek 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::A Star Trek: The Magazine article, (the one that had the interview with the ships designer) listed the torpedo placements: :::::::"The location of the tubes was given in the article, and is as follows : :::::::Pod: 7 total, 4 in upper section of pod, 3 in lower section, all face forward :::::::Saucer: 7 total, 3 forward below the front shuttle bay doors, 4 in dorsal surface, 2 port, 2 starboard. The latter four face out to port and starboard, respectively - so far as I know these are the only torpedo tubes we've ever seen which don't fire parallel to the direction of motion. Finally there is 1 in the lower hull section, just below the deflector dish." :::::::The above I quoted from Ditl.org, therefore I didn't write it. :::::::Detail of the Forward Pod Launchers (numbered 1-7): Here :::::::Shot of the dorsal hull, (here we can see the pod and 4 launchers (2 port, 2 starboard)) perpindicular to the ships direction: Here :::::::Shot of the ventral hull and deflector, (here we can see the other 4 torpedo tubes (3 just below the forward shuttle bay doors and 1 just under the deflector)): Here :::::::So lets count: Here :::::::15 total launchers in all, with 4 firing either right or left, perpindicular to the ships forward motion and 11 firing forward. Definately a well armed ship. --Avalon304 16:40, 17 December 2006 ::::::::I'd assume, based on the number of launchers, that they're all the older-style single-shot launchers. As opposed to the Enterprise-D main launcher that could shoot out a volley of five, or the Enterprise-E main turret than can launch a volley of ten in rapid-fire. If these are the older-style (Enterprise-A) launchers, they shoot one at a time with some reload time in between. So fifteen single-launch torpedos (technically 11 forward-facing), isn't such a stretch next to the Enterprise-E that can launch ten in the same time frame with one launcher, with a couple more conventional launchers mounted forward and aft facing. Likely the single-fire would be easier to produce and maintain, and gives you a bit more redundancy once the ship gets damaged (one shot won't take out all your forward torpedos). -- :::::::::If we are told 15 by the person who designed the ship, it is 15. -- ::::::::::That doesn't match what we have been able to see in canon, and no offense but we can't just take the word of an anonymous contributor saying they talked to the designer. We need proof. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) :::::::::::I'm afraid that's not how it is. Alex Jaeger was quoted in Star Trek: The Magazine that the "official" number of launchers is 15. Now, if the designer of the ship and/or Star Trek: The Magazine aren't valid or permittable sources, I find it difficult that the Technical Manuals (which have been known for their inaccuracies) are. I'm not saying the designer's word is gospel, but there's visual evidence of nearing 15 launchers, plus the man said there were 15 launchers. In all likelihood, there are indeed 15 launchers. -- 11:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::::::Fortunately, that isn't a problem, as the Tech Manuals are only permitted in the non-canon background sections of articles, not as accepted canon. Therefore, the word of designers that never made it on screen is not being accepted as any less valid than the tech manuals. If someone can find a reliable quote from a designer, than it will get the background note it deserves, but not a canon entry. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::::::Just keep it as Alex Jaeger says there are 15 launchers as he designed the ship, while the (mysteriously inaccurate) DS9 Tech Manual says there are only 2. And then say neither number conform exactly with what has been seen on screen. Then, as we're sticking to what's on-screen canon, we can go edit the Galaxy class page to say the ship tends to develop a warp core breach when it suffers the slightest bit of damage, especially when it's shields don't work. Hooray! (Note to humour-impaired people - that was meant to be a joke) --FFN 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::::From the Star Trek Fact Files it states that the ship has afew variants and to quote it "With so many ships, and even variations of salvaged hulls, being pressed into service against the Dominion, reports regarding exact armaments and power capacity my not be standard, or accurate, for all ships, but some Akira-Class vessels have, at least, a three-fire capacity in the weapons cluster's forward topedo bays." In basic, some Akira's might have X amount of tubes while some might have Y, also I count over 7 in most pics including side firing tubes which can be useful in battle. Source: The Offical Star Trek Fact Files: File 31 Card 18 -- 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ::::::::::Sorry if this is unwanted, but I think that it is VERY unlikely that 4 torpedoes could be fired out of 1,2 or 3 launchers let alone the 8 shown being fired in Star Trek: First Contact. Just watching First Contact proves that there are at least 8 forward torpedo tubes. TimberWolf 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 6 phasers? Doesn't the Akira have 3 phasers? In all the pictures I have ever seen, I have only managed to pick out 3. Where does the 6 phaser figure come from? 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)